This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2016 at 16:35:46 (UTC).

KENT STEFFES VS MCCONELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC. ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/03/2013 KENT STEFFES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MCCONELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN, NORMAN P. TARLE and ALLAN J. GOODMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0814

  • Filing Date:

    06/03/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LISA HART COLE

NANCY L. NEWMAN

NORMAN P. TARLE

ALLAN J. GOODMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STEFFES KENT

Defendants

MARKER BILLY L.[

MCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK INC.

MARKER BILLY L.

MARKER CHEVROLET BUICK

MCCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

WOODS DONALD F.

HENNIGAN BENNETT & DORMAN

GORRY TIMOTHY J.

Defendant Attorneys

MURRAY TODD A.

SHAPIRO MEGAN

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/03/2015
  • Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2015
  • Notice (OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT OF CASE AND ORDER RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 664.6 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Brief (TRIAL BRIEF: EXONERATION OF SURETIES ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Brief (TRIAL BRIEF: ATTORNEY'S FEES ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Brief (TRIAL BRIEF: UNCLEAN HANDS ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2015
  • Reply (regarding usury ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2015
  • Reply (regarding seurity ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2015
  • Jury Instructions (defendant's amended proposed jury instructions ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2015
  • Brief (TRIAL ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2015
  • Brief (TRIAL: USURY ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 08/28/2013
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2013
  • Substitution of Attorney Filed by Former Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2013
  • Request for Entry of Default (AS TO McCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC., dba MARKER CHEVROLET, BUICK A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ENTERED RESTORED BY THE COURT ON 11/26/13) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2013
  • Declaration Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2013
  • Notice of Motion Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2013
  • Memo points & authorities Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2013
  • Request for Entry of Default (SEE REJECTION NOTICE DATED 7/25/13 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2013
  • Request for Entry of Default (AS TO McCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC. dba MARKER CHEVROLET, BUICK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION SEE REJECT NOTICE DATED 7/31/13 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2013
  • Proof of Service of Summons & Com Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2013
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC120814    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: P

 

Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dept. P

TENTATIVE RULING

Kent Steffes v. McConnel Chevrolet Buick, Inc. et al. Case No.: SC120814

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Stipulated Judgment (CCP 664.6)

Hearing Date: 11/5/2019

Plaintiff sued for nonpayment of a loan. In October 2015, the parties settled the lawsuit. Under the terms of the agreement, defendants were to pay $72,000.00 in monthly installment payments. The parties also executed a stipulated judgment for $150,000.00, which would be filed if defendants failed to make the agreed-upon payments. Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement agreement and enter stipulated judgment for $150,000, claiming defendants failed to make payments from December 2018 through February 2019.

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6 permits a court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement between parties, and to retain jurisdiction over a dismissed matter in order to enforce such an agreement.

A liquidated damage clause is unenforceable “if it bears no reasonable relationship to the range of actual damages that the parties could have anticipated would flow from a breach.” Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Execute Sports, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 495, 499. In the case of a settlement agreement, a liquidated damages clause must “anticipate the damages that might flow from a breach of the stipulation (memorializing a settlement agreement),” but not from the damages occurring through breach of the underlying contract. Id.

Here, as in Greentree, the provision providing for recovery of $150,000.00 is based on damages that would flow from a breach of the underlying contract, rather than a breach of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff cites Jade Fashion 7 Co., Inc. v. Harkham Industries, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 635, 650, which held a settlement agreement providing for full payment of a debt is enforceable if a settling defendant defaults on an agreement to pay less than the full amount owed. However, the settlement in Jade “was not an agreement to settle or compromise a disputed claim. Rather, it was an agreement to forbear on the collection of a debt that was admittedly owed for goods[.]” Here, unlike Jade, the settlement agreement was a compromise of a disputed claim. The Jade rule does not apply. The provision in the settlement agreement increasing the amount owed from $72,000.00 to $150,000.00 upon default constitutes an unenforceable penalty under Greentree.

Defendants must pay the remaining unpaid portion of the agreed-upon $72,000.00 settlement, as well as 10% interest from October 1, 2015. Plaintiff’s exhibit G shows $16,875.00 remains owing. With interest, the total owed is $23,763.70. Judgment to be entered for plaintiff and against defendants for $23,763.70.